Mosquito Analogy
MOSQUITO ANALOGY - Part 1
1. Imagine an elderly woman who becomes deathly ill if bitten by a mosquito. Further imagine this woman is alone in a room with 1 mosquito flying about. She is in an unsafe environment; her risk of getting bit by the mosquito (and getting deathly ill) is relatively high.
2. Now imagine a young man who is outside the room (is socially isolated) from this woman. This man, unlike the woman, is not susceptible to the ill effects of a mosquito bite. If a mosquito were to bite him, he would simply just slap and kill the annoying little bugger (permanently removing this pest from the environment; never to bite anyone ever again).
3. So what would happen if this man entered the room with this vulnerable woman, with this mosquito flying about?
…would the woman be safer if this man shared the same environment as her?,
…or would she be less safe?,
…or would there be no change to her risk of being bitten by the mosquito?
ANSWER: The logical (mathematical/statistical) answer is that she would be TWICE AS SAFE because he would be sharing a proportionate amount of the risk. The odds and risk of her getting bit will have instantly reduced in half!
***********
MOSQUITO ANALOGY - Part 2
4. So now imagine that this same man then takes off most of his clothes, thereby exposing 10X more skin area (than the woman) to this killer mosquito.
5. So now what happens to the safety of this vulnerable woman?
…does this (un-clothed man) further reduce her risk of being bitten by the mosquito?
…or does it increase her risk?
…or does it not have any effect?
ANSWER: The logical (mathematical/statistical) answer is that she would be TEN TIMES MORE SAFE because he is now taking on a disproportionate share of the risk. The odds/risk of her getting bit have now instantly reduced 10 fold!
**********
MORAL-OF-THE-STORY: Anyone that advises (or mandates) that we socially isolate and clothe our healthy immune population is LOGICALLY IGNORANT -- doing so greatly INCREASES THE DEATHS to our vulnerable population, and PERPETUATES the further mutations of these killer mosquitos.
***********
MORE SCARY THOUGHTS:
6. Now imagine if every time that a vulnerable person was bitten by a mosquito, mosquito eggs were planted under the skin, and within days, the eggs would hatch and more mosquitos would then fly out into the environment, making our contaminated environment even more contaminated. The more vulnerable one is (i.e. the weaker one's immune system), the larger the number of mosquitos that can be bred and replicated back out into the environment.
7. Now imagine each and every replication cycle yields the potential of mutation (via natural law's "survival of the fittest"), whereas these new mutation iterations now develop deadlier and more contagious breeds of mosquitoes.
8. Now imagine a vaccine is created to protect against the latest mutation of mosquitos, but people foolishly continue to socially isolate and stay clothed. So what happens?
ANSWER: Logically, the vaccine would be rendered useless (non-effective) because 1) it is logically impossible to develop vaccines at a faster rate than new mutations are developing (i.e. we can only get deeper in the hole!), and 2) any gains made by the vaccine would be more than erased by the damage done by the continued social isolation and clothing mandates.
Logically, if we want to stop these deadly mosquitos once-and-for-all, then, more importantly than vaccinations, we must allow healthy people to freely socialize un-clothed, or else the mosquitos will ultimately win the battle of "survival-of-the-fittest".
*************
CONCLUSION: If we wish to save ourselves, then we need to "Follow the LOGIC" ...not the Bad Science (the science that disregards logic).
1. Imagine an elderly woman who becomes deathly ill if bitten by a mosquito. Further imagine this woman is alone in a room with 1 mosquito flying about. She is in an unsafe environment; her risk of getting bit by the mosquito (and getting deathly ill) is relatively high.
2. Now imagine a young man who is outside the room (is socially isolated) from this woman. This man, unlike the woman, is not susceptible to the ill effects of a mosquito bite. If a mosquito were to bite him, he would simply just slap and kill the annoying little bugger (permanently removing this pest from the environment; never to bite anyone ever again).
3. So what would happen if this man entered the room with this vulnerable woman, with this mosquito flying about?
…would the woman be safer if this man shared the same environment as her?,
…or would she be less safe?,
…or would there be no change to her risk of being bitten by the mosquito?
ANSWER: The logical (mathematical/statistical) answer is that she would be TWICE AS SAFE because he would be sharing a proportionate amount of the risk. The odds and risk of her getting bit will have instantly reduced in half!
***********
MOSQUITO ANALOGY - Part 2
4. So now imagine that this same man then takes off most of his clothes, thereby exposing 10X more skin area (than the woman) to this killer mosquito.
5. So now what happens to the safety of this vulnerable woman?
…does this (un-clothed man) further reduce her risk of being bitten by the mosquito?
…or does it increase her risk?
…or does it not have any effect?
ANSWER: The logical (mathematical/statistical) answer is that she would be TEN TIMES MORE SAFE because he is now taking on a disproportionate share of the risk. The odds/risk of her getting bit have now instantly reduced 10 fold!
**********
MORAL-OF-THE-STORY: Anyone that advises (or mandates) that we socially isolate and clothe our healthy immune population is LOGICALLY IGNORANT -- doing so greatly INCREASES THE DEATHS to our vulnerable population, and PERPETUATES the further mutations of these killer mosquitos.
***********
MORE SCARY THOUGHTS:
6. Now imagine if every time that a vulnerable person was bitten by a mosquito, mosquito eggs were planted under the skin, and within days, the eggs would hatch and more mosquitos would then fly out into the environment, making our contaminated environment even more contaminated. The more vulnerable one is (i.e. the weaker one's immune system), the larger the number of mosquitos that can be bred and replicated back out into the environment.
7. Now imagine each and every replication cycle yields the potential of mutation (via natural law's "survival of the fittest"), whereas these new mutation iterations now develop deadlier and more contagious breeds of mosquitoes.
8. Now imagine a vaccine is created to protect against the latest mutation of mosquitos, but people foolishly continue to socially isolate and stay clothed. So what happens?
ANSWER: Logically, the vaccine would be rendered useless (non-effective) because 1) it is logically impossible to develop vaccines at a faster rate than new mutations are developing (i.e. we can only get deeper in the hole!), and 2) any gains made by the vaccine would be more than erased by the damage done by the continued social isolation and clothing mandates.
Logically, if we want to stop these deadly mosquitos once-and-for-all, then, more importantly than vaccinations, we must allow healthy people to freely socialize un-clothed, or else the mosquitos will ultimately win the battle of "survival-of-the-fittest".
*************
CONCLUSION: If we wish to save ourselves, then we need to "Follow the LOGIC" ...not the Bad Science (the science that disregards logic).
Comments (53)
No of course not. Your thought experiement is predicated on the mosquito (or the virus) stinging once. The problem with a virus is, when it stings it multiplies itself, increasing the risk, not fading away in anonymity. If vaccinated people can become infected and might spread the disease it makes sense to slow down social contact lest the virus copies itself, increasing instead of descreasing the risk.
Socially isolating and masking a healthy immune person (for fear of the rare chance that they may infect someone) is as logically irrational as banning ambulance drivers from responding to emergencies (for fear of the rare chance that they might get in an accident and kill someone). Exceptions don't dictate the rule.
Most Covid-19 Cases Are Spread by People Without Symptoms
Bottom-line: there is LESS RISK to a vulnerable person surrounded by healthy unmasked immune people than not being surrounded by these healthy unmasked immune people.
Measles.
Rubella.
Polio.
Tetanus.
Diphtheria.
Smallpox.
Influenza.
Your idea of the utility of exposure flies against the face of previous experience.
Lamest thought experiment ever. And that's saying something given how much philosophers and, especially, half-assed would-be philosophers like us here on the forum love a lame-ass thought experiment. Just to be clear, being lame is much worse than being wrong. I'm embarrassed to respond.
The analogy between the woman in the room with a mosquito and her in a room with a virus is, to put it kindly, flawed. By which I mean stupid. If there were viruses in the room, they would be spread evenly throughout the room. Bringing someone else into the room, clothed or naked, would have no effect on the likelihood of the woman being exposed.
Except that's not true. Although we can't be sure there are no viruses in the room before the new guy shows up, there should be very few. That's what isolation is about. Bringing someone in from outside probably increases the chances that there will be more viruses, which will raise the probability of exposure. The more people we let in, the greater the probability.
I won't go into the later analogies. I couldn't without giggling.
Conclusion: Dumb ass analogy. Wrong answer.
[Edited by poster]
:up:
Yes, well. I just went back and edited that part out.
Firstly, mosquitoes (and viruses) don't necessarily stand still in a room.
Secondly, my analogy is based on risk assessment (safety analysis). The more people that share a fixed risk the less the individual risk per person. This is a basic risk assessment calculation.
1 person in a room with 1 mosquito =1X risk per person.
2 people in a room with 1 mosquito = 0.5X (½) risk per person.
100 people in the room with 1 mosquito = 0.01X (1/100) risk per person.
T Clark, check the science. It is extremely rare for the young (immune) man to replicate and cough up (or "bring in") mosquitoes into the room.
In other words, there is MORE RISK to the vulnerable woman if the man does NOT enter the room, than if the man does, and coughs up mosquitoes.
And likewise, there is MORE RISK to a drowning woman if the lifeguard does NOT enter the pool, than if he does, and accidentally drowns the woman.
*******
Bottom-line: there is risk in everything we do. The risk to the vulnerable woman is significantly LESS with the unclothed young man in the room, than without him.
A young person is not necessarily less likely to catch the disease than an older person, just less likely to have serious consequences. Also, as I noted, viruses would diffuse throughout the air in the room, meaning that another person in the room will not decrease the likelihood that the woman will be exposed.
Show me this science you refer to.
Nothing you have said changes my opinion of your post. It's still wrong.
Quoting Roger Gregoire
Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
[quote=Wikipedia]In evolutionary biology, a spandrel is a phenotypic trait that is a byproduct of the evolution of some other characteristic, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection.[/quote]
So I read this article about a certain mosquito-infested region in the US. Researchers compared mosquito-borne diseases over time and found a dramatic drop in such illnesses from about mid-1900s. The explanation: TV had been invented (more people were staying indoors, away from the flying bloodsuckers, watching their favorite programs). I wonder if such ingenious solutions amount to psychological manipulation ( :naughty: ). TV has significant health benefits! Who would've thought? Covid could've been controlled with high quality TV programs.
Coming to the OP, I'd say the man (bless his soul) took a bullet for this woman! Bodyguards do that, draw the fire so to speak. Good OP.
Yet apparently...
Quoting Roger Gregoire
Which 'science' would this be? The one you just instructed us to ignore?
Quoting Roger Gregoire
Why would the old woman not just put a mask on, wash her hands frequently, and wipe down high contact surfaces for the few hours it takes for the 'mosquito' to die anyway since it can't survive outside of a body?
Engaging the services of a 'human hoover' seems incredibly stupid when an actual hoover would do the job just as well.
I am very much pro science. But science that disregards logic is Bad Science. Ignore Bad Science!
The simple math is -- the more people sharing a viral load, the less individual risk per person. The more healthy unmasked immune people surrounding a vulnerable person, the proportionally safer she becomes.
Bad Science is telling us to keep healthy unmasked immune people away from the vulnerable, thereby insuring their death.
It is time to question this Bad Science, and stop being puppets to it.
If we were talking about mosquitos, and if a mosquitos behaved the way viruses do, and if mosquitos could only bite one person, perhaps you would be right. But viruses do not behave like mosquitos and you will never find one virus in a room.
So, show us some evidence. I've asked before. Several other people have too. Put up or shut up. Your so-called "simple math" is wrong.
The question is not whether vulnerable people would be safer this way, it's whether there's an even safer means to protect them.
Even if you were right about healthy people not contributing much to viral replication, there's still an even safer way to protect the vulnerable. Keep everyone masked, clean their environment and simply wait for the viruses there to die, it'll only take a few hours.
Alternatively, vaccinate them against the virus so that they are protected that way.
The question is why would you advocate the option which puts people at risk when there's an even less risky option open to you?
The replies are asking about the behavior of the mosquito compared with the behavior of the virus. You should try to explain this, as this is what they're asking.
So, for those asking, the virus, though non-living organism, does seek a host to replicate. It is not just floating in the air waiting to get hitched. The mosquito behaves the same way, and it is a living organism. It seeks a host.
Disclaimer: I am not joining this thread to side with the OP. I don't know much about the virus.
This is a misnomer on my part -- organisms are at least single-celled. Virus is not a celled organism. Rather they're a coded agent. "Agent" is the proper reference to a virus.
This is not correct. Viruses are not self-propelled. They move passively with the substance they are attached to, e.g. droplets of moisture from the lungs.
But that isn't the world we live in. Wearing masks and social distancing is a way to minimize risk of exposure when we don't know who is theoretically "immune" and incapable of transmission or not.
The number of mosquitoes (or viral particles) is irrelevant. Doubling the number of people within a given environment cuts the risk in half to any individual within that environment. Math is math regardless of the size of the number.
Note to self - Do not respond to posts from RG in the future.
In that case, @Roger Gregoire's analogy is misplaced as he mistakes the mosquito's search for a host before it lands on the host as similar to how a virus seeks its host before it enters the lungs, etc of the host. I stand corrected.
It works if we're only talking about the mosquito seeking a host. But virus behaves differently.
Quoting Roger Gregoire
I don't think the spread of the virus is a zero-sum game -- such as, some could take the risk so others could be safer. If the virus's search for a host begins externally, like the mosquito flying around searching for another animal to bite, your findings could work.
But I have not really paid much attention to collective exposure to virus as a means of protection.
Instead of a mosquito, imagine there is a mad killer with a gun loaded with one bullet, in this room with the woman. If the killer is intent on killing (shooting) someone, then the woman is in grave danger. ...agreed?
Now, if another person enters into the room, is the woman now safer (with a killer with one bullet), or less safe? How about if 100 people enter this room, is the woman more safe or less safe?
The math and logic (in determining risk) is very simple and straightforward. Take the number of bullets and divide it by the number of people in the room to ascertain the risk assessment to any individual in the room.
For example, if you double the number of people, you cut the individual risk in half. ...agreed?
*******************
Furthermore, many of you posters here seem to be subscribing to Bad Science. Healthy immune people (in general) do not spread the virus. True (good) science comes from empirical data, not from the scare-media, or from medical/scientific "opinions".
Remember, it is LOGIC that gives us truths (and falses), ...not Science. Science provides us with the premise statements (empirical data) from which to draw logical conclusions. Many good scientists are very poor logicians. (e.g. Fauci).
Science that disregards logic is Bad Science. Don't follow Bad Science. Follow the Logic!
The analogy is again false. The virus is not a killer with one bullet. There is not 'one'virus flying about potentially only infecting one person. There is a virus load in the room, potentially infecting people. A more apt analogy is to imagine the virus as a potential bout of insanity which potentially makes an ordinary sane person draw his or her gun and start firing of bullets en masse and randomly. It is pretty clear than that the woman is safer on her own than in the vicinity of other people, even if those other people have had some antidote against this affliction which works 90% of the time but not a 100%.
Quoting Roger Gregoire
Who is advising for or applies isolation of the healthy immune population???
Then, the mosquito example you gave supports the isolation illusion principle, because the mosquito(s) can be killed before doing harm or die after a bite. But what about a virus, which cannot be killed but instead spread in the environment and transmitted even by relatively immune people (who will also be infected but they won't suffer from severe health conditions)?
@Roger Gregoire'- your analogy fails on multiple levels. Fix the analogy and your conclusion gets traction.
**********
Tobias, you are misinterpreting the analogy. The "one bullet" represents a "viral infection", or if we wish to be more literal, the "one bullet" can represent "a group of 1000 viral particles" (note: it takes a minimum inhalation of 1000 viral particles to create an infection.)
********
Correct. And viral particles can also be killed/die prior to inhalation, and of course, after inhalation.
Viral particles are killed in the environment. They can only survive a few hours airborne and/or a few days on some surfaces.
Alkis, contrary to what we are told by the scare-media and by Bad Science, healthy immune people (in general) do NOT spread the virus.
The risk of a healthy immune person infecting a vulnerable person is extremely low, and does not logically justify preventing saving lives.
Similarly, the risk of ambulance drivers getting into traffic accidents (and killing someone) is extremely low, and does not logically justify preventing ambulance drivers from getting into traffic to go saves lives.
The Logical fallacy being committed is called "Hasty Generalization".
Agent, check the science. In general, healthy immune people ("naked men") do NOT shed/spread the virus.
**********
Logically (and contrary to Bad Science) the transmission of the virus is from "person-to-environment" and from "environment-to-person", ...NOT from "person-to-person" (...people's respiratory systems are not directly connected to each other!).
People get infected by being in contaminated environments. Period.
Yes but that does not matter one bit. Your premise is that a viral load will only infect one person, whereas a viral load might infect 1 or 20 or a 100 people... It is you who restricts the killer to just one shot, not me. If we are all overthinking your mosquito analogy, it might be because we are all stupid or because your mosquito analgy kind of sucks... think carefully about your answer...
I agree.
So clean the environment. It's quite simple. SARS?CoV?2 is killed quite easily, most anti-bacterial wipes will do it, soap and water, just time with UV light, opening a window will clear many airborne particles...
Or give the vulnerable woman a vaccine so she can do the virus-killing herself.
You still haven't answered my question as to why you're even discussing such a massively inefficient and risky strategy as using a healthy person's immune system to do the virus-killing when there are so many less risky and more efficient methods.
I'm not sure if making love to the young man will help her. She will have an unforgettable time though. Or a heart attack... :broken:
Not so - you (and others) are reading WAY TOO MUCH into this very simple analogy.
We can have as many bullets/mosquitos/viral particles as we want. The math does not change. I only used the 1 mosquito (or 1 bullet) to make the math (in calculating Risk Assessment) super simple for everyone to plainly see.
Here is the Simple Math: Total Risk divided by Number of People Sharing that Risk = Individual Risk
For Example:
1. If the total risk is 4 bullets and there are 8 people in the room then the individual risk = 0.5X (4/8).
2. If the total risk is 2 mosquitos and there are 20 people in the room then the individual risk = 0.1X (2/20)
3. If the total risk is 1000 viral particles floating around in this room (and 1000 particles = 1 infection) and there is 1 person in the room, then the individual risk = 1X (1/1).
The inability to understand simple basic RISK ASSESSMENT is causing us to act irrationally; causing more harm than good; causing us to make "hasty generalizations" (a logical fallacy).
Examples of this irrational behavior:
1. Intentionally preventing ambulances from responding to emergencies for fear the ambulance itself may get into an accident and kill some one. --- this causes more harm (deaths) than good (non-deaths).
2. Intentionally preventing lifeguards from saving a drowning swimmer for fear the lifeguard might drown while saving the person. --- this causes more harm (deaths) than good (non-deaths).
3. Intentionally masking and social distancing healthy people for fear that they might infect and kill a vulnerable person. --- this causes more harm (deaths) than good (non-deaths).
********************
We have been so brainwashed to believe that masking and social distancing healthy people is a good thing, that we passionately and blindly defend it against people like me. If only we could temporarily suspend our emotion and passion for a minute and take an honest logical look at the situation, we would then realize the foolishness of our actions.
And if we can't suspend our emotion/passion to look at this issue from a logical perspective, then we will continue being part of the cancel-culture mob of insulting anyone that disagrees with our viewpoint. God help us.
**********************
Yes, agreed. All this helps. So, how's that working for us so far?
Until we allow our healthy population to unmask (and fully socialize), covid will stick around, and continually breed and mutate into more contagious variants (as evidenced by empirical evidence).
******************
If the woman is truly vulnerable, then a vaccine won't protect her (as evidenced by empirical evidence). Ultimately vaccines are useless if we don't allow our healthy people to protect our vulnerable people.
**************
There is nothing "inefficient or risky" about it. This has been Mother-Natures way of protecting mankind for eons. The healthy protect the vulnerable.
Somehow, we have allowed a good scientist, but logically illiterate person (Fauci), to convince us into inadvertently destroying ourselves. And the cancel-culture mob (the passionate blind followers) to shut down anyone that disagrees with his dangerous irrationality. There are many tens of thousands of experts/scientists that see the logical flaw in Dr. Fauci's advice/opinion, but they are shut down by the cancel-culture mob who instead of having logical debate/discussion, prefer to insult and destroy the lives/careers of those that disagree.
Don't be part of the mob. Look at this issue logically; rationally. Our lives depend on it.
****************
LOL Agent. The point of the "naked" man was to illustrate the amount of "risk exposure''. Mosquitoes are attracted to skin. The more skin exposed, the greater the disproportionate risk between the two people in the room.
If we mask the vulnerable lady and unmask the healthy man, then a very large disproportionate share of the risk shifts over to the man, thereby making the vulnerable lady significantly safer.
People really need to learn and understand Risk Assessment 101 before blindly following some of our political leaders dangerously irrational advice.
You are presupposing a zero sum game where the number of possible infections is fixed. However, it is not a zero sum game but a positive sum game. Me getting infected will actually increase the chances of you getting infected because I will also start spreading the virus. Each time an infected person exhales new virus is realeased. If one does get infected one will spread the virus, even when vaccinated, albeit to a far lesser extent. That means more people may become infected increasing the risk to all of us of contamination.
Yes. But viruses belong to another class of stochastic variables. A virus doesn't fly around the room like a mosquito. The naked man doesn’t act like a lightning rod for the viruses, as for the mosquito. The mosquito might temporarily be occupied with the man's ass, as a load of mosquitos might. The same holds for a huge number of viruses entering the man. Inside the man they can't harm the woman. Mosquitos are search-and-suckers. Viruses only suckers The man might take some away, but later on he will emit new ones (despite of being immune), increasing the risk for the woman. They might even be introduced by him in the first place, which is what actually happened a few years ago. Introducing the naked man will indeed take viruses away from the room. But a lot will remain, and I doubt that paying the Chippendales for visiting the elderly centers is a good way to get rid of viruses in the rooms of faint-hearted ladies of 90 years old.
:rofl:
We don't know - people are barely doing it because we've been sold the fantasy that the vaccine will save us like some Disney prince, so there's barely any investment in protecting the vulnerable at all, they're still stuffed in overcrowded, understaffed, under-ventilated, under-supplied health facilities, and half the world still doesn't have access to a vaccine for it's vulnerable because the parasitic arseholes who run the pharmaceutical companies are more concerned about their quarterly profits than they are about people's lives and won't release the fucking patents, that we fucking paid for them to discover in the first place...
Quoting Roger Gregoire
What empirical evidence? Literally all the available evidence is that the vaccines are highly effective at reducing the risk of severe outcomes in the vulnerable. Do you have some contrary studies?
Quoting Roger Gregoire
The second sentence is unrelated to the first. The risk is obvious - that the person you think is 'healthy' turns out not to be and actually increases the number of viruses in 'the room'. A risk completely eliminated by just leaving the vulnerable person in isolation and cleaning her room.
Quoting Roger Gregoire
I don't doubt that for a moment (and have written extensively about it). The point here is that they don't agree with you either. Most scientists who disagree with Fauci's approach advocate a policy of protecting the the vulnerable with vaccines, healthcare, social distancing, masking, and hygiene.
Again, if you know of any scientists who agree with you, then cite them, otherwise we're just making shit up, and that's a pointless and dangerous exercise.
Agent, this is the FALSE premise statement that many of us have been brainwashed to believe.
************
Tobias, this statement is FALSE. If you are healthy and get infected it will REDUCE the chance of me getting infected (assuming that we are in the same environment).
Remember, healthy people (in general) do not spread the virus. When the virus encounters a healthy immune person the viral transmission is STOPPED (and removed from the environment), thereby protecting nearby vulnerable people.
And yes, some healthy people can, in rare cases, spread the virus instead of stopping the virus. But this 'exception' does not logically justify preventing saving people's lives. There is more risk (deaths) in not letting healthy people fully socialize unmasked, than there is otherwise.
We need to be careful not to make "hasty generalizations" (a logical fallacy). This is when we hyper-focus on the few, or the bad (which prevents us from seeing the many, or the good), which then causes us to foolishly do more harm than good. For example…
1. If we hyper-focus on the deaths caused by some ambulance drivers, then we are blinded to see all the good; all the deaths that ambulance drivers prevent, thereby causing us to foolishly ban ambulance drivers from responding to emergencies (...ultimately causing more harm than good).
2. If we hyper-focus on the crime committed by some cops, then we are blinded to see all the good; all the crime (and deaths) that cops prevent, thereby causing us to foolishly defund (eliminate cops) from responding to crime (...ultimately causing more harm than good).
3. If we hyper-focus on the rare chance of healthy people spreading the virus, then we are blinded to see all the deaths that healthy people prevent, thereby causing us to foolishly prohibit healthy people from saving vulnerable people (...ultimately causing more harm than good).
*****************
This is a fair and legitimate concern. I don't think we should allow everyone to run free. But certainly, at a minimum, we should allow our younger population and healthy adults (those with no known underlying conditions), and especially those healthy people that have been vaccinated (!) to run free (fully socialize unmasked).
Since it is our (strong/healthy) immune systems that stop this virus, why are we hiding away the stoppers (those with strong/healthy immune systems) away from stopping this virus?
Hiding (social distancing/masking) from the virus is impossible. We can't make it go away by hiding. We all cant simultaneously live in sterile astronaut suits for 2 consecutive weeks until this thing dies out. One infraction starts the pandemic all over again.
***************
This is very idealistic, and not very pragmatic (nor realistic). We can't lock up every vulnerable person into a sterile environment (forever!) on this planet. One infraction will start an outbreak all over again. (...remember this whole pandemic started from only one person on this planet).
The only real solution is Mother Nature's way; let the healthy protect the vulnerable. We can't vaccinate our way out of this mess. We can never create new vaccines at a faster pace than new mutations will occur. We need Mother Nature's help. Doing opposite of Mother Nature only insures we lose this battle.
So we can all be safe.
My love for power and telling others what to do flows from my essential goodness and desire to be a protector. :pray:
Yes, they work so long as we don't mask (and socially isolate) our healthy vaccinated population.
**************
The masking of our healthy vaccinated population renders the vaccine ineffective.
1 step forward, 2 steps back.
Any gains made by vaccination is more than erased by the losses created by masking (and social distancing) the healthy vaccinated population.
1 step forward, 2 steps back.
Repeat after me, over and over again, until we finally come to our senses.
And if we don't come to our senses, then we will be on a endless trail of vaccine after vaccine, booster after booster, chasing the never-ending end, like a dog chasing his tail.
What has masking to do with working? It works also when masking. Are you saying it works only if you don't mask because healthy people take away viruses around the fragile people?
I am saying that unmasked healthy people protect vulnerable people from getting infected by being in close proximity with them. The protective effect is significant! The proof is in the risk assessment calculation.
The reason that many of us can't recognize this protective effect is because we have been pre-conditioned to falsely believe that this virus transmits "person-to-person". We have been pre-conditioned to believe that people next to each other is 'BAD', and that people separated (at least 6') away from each other is 'GOOD' (via non-truth propaganda/slogans such as "Social Distancing Saves Lives"). For anything that contradicts our inner notion of 'GOOD' and 'BAD' is automatically discarded (by our minds) as 'WRONG'. Hence, the strong passionate defense and insults against people like me claiming that we've got it all (our 'good' and 'bad') backwards.
Contrary to our pre-conditioned beliefs, this virus does NOT transmit "person-to-person" (our respiratory systems are not directly connected to each other!). The virus transmits "person-to-environment" and "environment-to-person". We get infected by being in contaminated environments. Period. -- For example, someone could spew (cough/sneeze) tens of thousands of viral particles into our local grocery store, and be thousands of miles away (more than 6 feet away!) when these particles infect a vulnerable person. (Note: viral particles can survive many hours airborne and up to a few days on particular surfaces e.g. cardboard, etc).
Bottom-line: We get infected by being in "contaminated environments". Period. Not via "person-to-person". Once we are able to grasp this notion (this truth) into our brains, then we can more readily see and understand the protective effect of unmasked healthy people in close proximity of vulnerable people. We can then see and understand the risk assessment/ safety analysis. We can then see that we are killing our people (via separations and maskings) faster than we are saving them (via vaccinations).
Until then, we (our minds) will automatically reject any notion of people being "close together" or "unmasked" as 'BAD'. Our brain/mind tells us that this notion is 'BAD' because it is counter to what we have been pre-conditioned to believe. Unfortunately, we have been pre-conditioned to believe a falsity. Hopefully people (especially our political leaders) will recognize the grave error soon, and turn this ship around before we reach a point of no return.
Then viruses have to be there in the first place. The man can take them away by sucking them up or attract them to his skin. But the increased volume in the room (of his body) will increase the virus density around the lady. The man can't inhale enough of them to keep up. You can open the door. This will keep the virus density the same. So the man entering has to keep the door open, though initially the virus density around the lady will increase. Increasing the risk. This is obviously not happening with one mosquito.
So. The man enters naked, leaves the door open, and walks to our girlfriend. The number of viruses around the lady increases. Then he starts to suck viruses away from grandma and blow the air to the door. But what's the balance? It's better to let him enter masked, because he might bring in new viruses. Increasing the risk. The risk is not as easily assessed like you do. If he wears a mask he can suck though. Best of both worlds. No emission, only diversion, after initial increase.
If there are no viral particles in the room, then the vulnerable person is already safe. If there are viral particles in the room then the unmasked immune person in the room helps keep these deadly particles away from the vulnerable person.
The safety benefit to the vulnerable person (with the unmasked immune person in the same environment) can be calculated via a simple risk analysis/assessment calculation.
No, this is not true. Remember, healthy immune people (in general) don't shed/spread the virus.
The replication (and subsequent emitting) of the virus is related to the health and strength of one's immune system. Those with strong healthy immune systems do not (in general) shed the virus.